Upper Harbor Terminal . Community Advisory Committee Meeting #5 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Upper Harbor Terminal

Community Advisory Committee Meeting #5 November 18, 2019

2

1. Agenda Overview and clarifications 2. Ongoing Community Art Project 3. CAC options regarding officers, subcommittees, and participation in process 4. Powerline Discussion 5. Green Gentrification presentation 6. Green Gentrification small group discussion 7. CAC discussion of engagement 8. Public Comment Period 9. Adjourn

Agenda

3

Park Design Process

Design + Operations Program Model

Community Advisory Committee

YOU ARE HERE

Previous Community Engagement

Continued Community Engagement

4

Introductions

5

CAC Process

6

Overhead Utilities/ Powerline Discussion

7

96 5

Overhead Utilities/Powerline Discussion

What we know:

• Current Xcel transmission lines bisect the site and must be moved for any development (rough appx. $5 - $7million)
• Lines cross river overhead; 1 pole needed by river in any scenario
• Xcel charges for engineering studies; there is cost to fully understand options
• Full burial along the railroad tracks may be possible, but would be very expensive (rough appx. $5-$8 million

additional costs)

• Full burial along the river is likely possible but would be very expensive
• City will tentatively pay to move overhead lines to new overhead location, but does not havefunds to move lines

underground

• City plans to move first connection pole by the river to the south to minimize impacts to public space

Current question:

• MPRB could study, and possibly bury, a short segment of lines over park land. Both study, and possible burial, have

costs.

8

96 5

Overhead Utilities/Powerline Discussion

Example of monopoles Example of overhead/underground transition poles

9

96 5

Overhead Utilities/Powerline Discussion

• Option 1: Maintain overhead line over parkway
• Requires 1 (likely monopole) near river and 1 back near tracks, 2 poles total
• Xcel will limit the height of what can go under the lines, but not the use
• Future uses could be impacted. A restaurant (for example) may have issues with a location under power lines.
• Option 2: Bury line under parkway
• Requires 2 transition poles near the river and 2 back near the railroad tracks, 4 poles total. Poles may need to

be fenced and are more visually obtrusive than the monopoles.

• Costs additional funds (rough appx $10 - $30K) for study to determine if feasible. May not be feasible.
• Costs additional funds to bury (rough appx $1.5+ million) would reduce MPRB construction budget of appx

$7.75m. Cost cannot be fully determined without paying for the additional study to compare the two options.

• There are limits to what can go over a buried line; would limit buildings, footings, and stormwater
• management. Lines in the ground are encased in concrete.

Is the impact to park budget worth exploring burial of the lines in this short segment?

10

Green Gentrification

11

Why there is risk

• Urban areas in general
• New park and other investments
• Linear parks that link to other places
• New connections to previously isolated areas

What is Green Gentrification?

96 5 Various definitions: Cleaning up pollution or providing green amenities increases local property values and attracts wealthier

• residents. . .

Urban greening projects that make areas more livable and attractive and dramatically alters housing

• pportunities and communities. . .

Appropriation of environmental justice movement successes to serve high end redevelopment. . .

12

High Line and Chicago 606

• Both are signature park investments on former obsolete industrial infrastructure
• Both are designed as regional attractions that draw visitors from well beyond their adjacent neighborhoods.
• Both projects connect adjacent neighborhoods together

Recent examples of Green Gentrification

5

13

Research also shows that investment in parks can lead to substantially increased property values and housing

• prices. Between 2003 and 2011, property values near

the High Line in New York City increased 103 percent, despite the deep recession, and $2 billion had been invested in related development. Housing prices along a portion of the 606 Trail in Chicago rose 48 percent from 2013 (when construction began) to 2016.

.

14

Addressing Green Gentrification

96 5

11th Street Bridge Project

• Park development is linked with anti-gentrification

efforts in the surrounding areas

• Physical, cultural, environmental and economic

health

• Workforce development and economic
• pportunities
• Leveraging park land to support efforts beyond the

park boundaries

• Outcome still unknown

15

Addressing Green Gentrification

96 5

MPRB is prepared to participate in a broader view toward district transformation.

• Magnitude of Above the Falls and UHT success is dependent on

transformation of surrounding industrial district.

• Positive change for existing community members is key to

mission.

• MPRB does not have the answer to gentrification, but believes

that a district-wide approach would be most successful.

• MPRB is not the right agency to lead, but is ready to participate as

a partner at the table.

16

Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA)

• Preservation of existing affordable housing
• Creation of new affordable housing
• Tenant protections
• Asset building

Addressing Green Gentrification

96 5

17

• Creating accessible quality parks and green spaces
• Support of the right kind of development and land uses
• Designing the right park
• Programming the right park
• Creating opportunities for community members through the park

Opportunities at Upper Harbor Terminal for MPRB

96 5

18

Green Gentrification

Exercise #1

19

5

Exercise #1

Design Balance

One idea being tested to mitigate green gentrification are parks that are “just green enough” or parks that satisfy residents needs but are generally not designed to draw from outside a certain area. The Slow Park Movement also encourages developing a park more slowly to avoid abrupt changes to the neighborhood identity. But given the lack of riverfront park on the Northside, we don’t want to underserve the community members. Is this a worthwhile consideration to address green gentrification concerns? What is a good balance and design approach?

Exercise (20 minutes)

• Continuum statement and questions

Report out (5 minutes) Concept: “Just green enough” vs. A destination park

20

21

Green Gentrification

Exercise #2

22

Exercise (25 minutes) Three part question.

• Question: What are the right types of physical improvements (are these familiar amenities or are

these new exciting types of amenities) to ensure the park is by and for the northside?

• Question: Give us ideas about activation and programming to ensure the park is by and for the

northside?

• Question: How can working and learning skills at the park build opportunities and connections for

Northside community members?

Report out (5 minutes) Exercise #2

Northside Park: Local/Regional/National

Concept: Building a park with the Northside, by the Northside, and for the Northside.

5

23

24

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

(10 Minutes)

25

ADJOURN THANKS!